Re: [PATCH] Re: DB (Postgres & Transactions, unresolved issues)

[Sean Legassick]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 01:19:27PM -0400, Nissim wrote:
> Are you both saying that BasePeer should remain as it is in the last
> patch I submitted, with transactions, but with no special code for large
> object support? Then the large object hack should go in the higher level
> peer class, but use a method on the db which says hasTransactions()? 
> Also, I call your attintion to the fact that there already is database
> specific code in the TurbineUserPeer: 
> 
>    168          if (
> TurbineResources.getString("database.default.driver", "" )
>    169              .startsWith("oracle") )
>    170          {
>    171              id = getNextId(SEQUENCE_NAME);
>    172              criteria.add(VISITOR_ID, id);
>    173              BasePeer.doInsert(criteria);
>    174          }                          

Yes, there is isn't there...

> If that's OK, we can also put code in there which calls the transaction
> methods if:
> 
> TurbineResources.getString("database.default.driver", "" )
>              .startsWith("org.postgres")

so this looks okay too I guess.

> In any event, I think the BasePeer portion of the patch should be
> applied, since it is generic support of transactions...

Agreed. I'll apply it later today (assuming no objections).

-- 
Sean Legassick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe:        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?:           [EMAIL PROTECTED]